"Obama pals around with terrorists" - Sarah Palin

Harmony

The funniest thing about this whole thing is every time Ayers is brought up to Obama, or his campaign, they continually emphasize the fact that obama was 8 years old when this sick fuck carried out his terrorist activities againts our country. Like somehow that makes everything ok lol. Not only is this guy a terrorist, he is an unrepentant terrorist. No apology's, no remorse, in fact he has stated that he wishes he carried out more bombings. But hey, barrack was only 8 years old.

A murderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a serial killer is still a fucking murderer, rapist, terrorist and serial killer no matter how old you were when they were committing there hideous acts.

I wonder how many of you Obama lovers would be willing to be so forgiving and understanding if Mcain had the exact same relationship with a guy who bombed several abortion clinics and his only regret is that he didn't bomb more abortion clinics?

Hypocrisy, yes I think so.

digster

PEPPER wrote:

No, I think I would rather to be personally attacked for my beliefs on this board because that is what it is intended for right....to have one sided thoughts and anyone who doesn’t agree with the norm gets called names right...is that the best way to think of it?

Evidence...go back 3 pages to my second post in this thread...that is all of the evidence you should need that I have found...but I assume you, like many others tend to look over the wordy post and pick out the comments that are made that can give you a dig

Please quit playing the victim..."everyone's calling you names?" Well, fine, I didn't call you any names, but instead of responding to what I said you changed the argument. Leads me to believe that you don't have any good response.

And as for your massive post of words a few pages back, you'll be happy to know I did read it. And someone astutely pointed out that you didn't offer any facts but gave us a Wall Street Journal editorial as your evidence. You've thus far failed to give us any information or evidence that Obama and Ayers are friends. Where is that evidence? Where is the evidence that they are friends?

Why don't you read the Ayers/Obama from the Times above? After all, it's the article that Palin used to support her point about Obama having ties to terrorists? Maybe instead of calling other people names (I've been called a sheep a few times before by you, after giving good arguments in response to your posts that consistently lack any argument). We may disagree, but we're still waiting to hear your arguments (also, I should mention us sheep are still waiting to hear why you're voting for McCain, after we all gave you our informed reasons for voting for Obama in the Palin debate thread).

MattyJoe

YieldInHiding wrote:

Welcome to my ignore list. Idiot.

Yeah that's right, just ignore it, that'll make it all go away. That'll make Obama a viable candidate.

At this point, I feel like I just want Obama to get elected. Let him fuck up the country economically and politically so we can stop having to listen to all the garbage about how he's the savior, CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE. Then we can have someone come in and fix it all like Ronald Reagan fixed the mess that Jimmy Carter created. I'm telling you right now, we'd be in a nuclear war with Russia right now if Obama had been president instead of Ronald Reagan. And we'd be losing.

digster

edited post

jimed14

Harmony wrote:

The funniest thing about this whole thing is every time Ayers is brought up to Obama, or his campaign, they continually emphasize the fact that obama was 8 years old when this sick fuck carried out his terrorist activities againts our country. Like somehow that makes everything ok lol. Not only is this guy a terrorist, he is an unrepentant terrorist. No apology's, no remorse, in fact he has stated that he wishes he carried out more bombings. But hey, barrack was only 8 years old.

A murderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a serial killer is still a fucking murderer, rapist, terrorist and serial killer no matter how old you were when they were committing there hideous acts.

I wonder how many of you Obama lovers would be willing to be so forgiving and understanding if Mcain had the exact same relationship with a guy who bombed several abortion clinics and his only regret is that he didn't bomb more abortion clinics?

Hypocrisy, yes I think so.

Ok, McCain has been all buddy buddy with Pastor Hagee ... a guy who stated Katrina was God's retribution for homosexuality, and that the Catholic church was complicit with regards to the Nazis and the halocaust ...

Now, do I think McCain feels this way? No. McCain does have ties to him, but, I'm not stupid enough ot think McCain feels that way.

I'll say it again ... even with whatever ties there are to Rezko and Wright, I still believe Obama would be a better president than John McCain, I mean, that's what we're trying to get at here, right?

I stated SEVERAL times I wasn't really thrilled about the Rezko discounted loan issue ... (I still think the Ayers stuff is being way overblown, no pun intended).

But overall, I agree with Obama's views, his vision for the country, I think he is smarter than McCain, able to handle all the coplexities of the issues better, is more level headed, is for more diplomacy than McCain ... etc etc etc ...

Every candidate has their warts, there's no denying it. Again, as I stated, they ALL have questionable ties, they hang out with politicians all day ... of course they have questionable ties.

jimed14

MattyJoe wrote:

Yeah that's right, just ignore it, that'll make it all go away. That'll make Obama a viable candidate.

At this point, I feel like I just want Obama to get elected. Let him fuck up the country economically and politically so we can stop having to listen to all the garbage about how he's the savior, CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE. Then we can have someone come in and fix it all like Ronald Reagan fixed the mess that Jimmy Carter created. I'm telling you right now, we'd be in a nuclear war with Russia right now if Obama had been president instead of Ronald Reagan. And we'd be losing.

Now you know how most of us felt after the 2004 election ... and guess what, we were fucking right!

inmytree

If this ayers guy is a terrorist, why is he not in gitmo...?

I don't understand why this guy is an issue for obama....

mammasan

Harmony wrote:

The funniest thing about this whole thing is every time Ayers is brought up to Obama, or his campaign, they continually emphasize the fact that obama was 8 years old when this sick fuck carried out his terrorist activities againts our country. Like somehow that makes everything ok lol. Not only is this guy a terrorist, he is an unrepentant terrorist. No apology's, no remorse, in fact he has stated that he wishes he carried out more bombings. But hey, barrack was only 8 years old.

A murderer, a rapist, a terrorist, a serial killer is still a fucking murderer, rapist, terrorist and serial killer no matter how old you were when they were committing there hideous acts.

I wonder how many of you Obama lovers would be willing to be so forgiving and understanding if Mcain had the exact same relationship with a guy who bombed several abortion clinics and his only regret is that he didn't bomb more abortion clinics?

Hypocrisy, yes I think so.

According to you and Pepper's logic then McCain associates with terrorist and terrorist sympathizers as well.

Every time McCain has stopped in South Florida, through out his run, he has appeared with Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. All three of them have aided and supported the freedom of Orlando Boasch and Luis Posada Carilles. All three of them signed a Congressional letter offering support for MEK (People's Mujahedin of Iran) which is a terrorist organization on our State Department's List of terrorist organizations.

So I guess I would be correct, by your standards, if I where to start saying that McCain pals around with terrorist and their supporters.

MattyJoe

jimed14 wrote:

Now you know how most of us felt after the 2004 election ... and guess what, we were fucking right!

Okay, but I don't see the part where you're gonna fix it. Obama certainly won't. Think the economy is bad now? Whoa boy, the times are changing indeed. I can't wait till Obama levies even higher taxes on corporations. I don't see how that could possibly fix the economy, without converting over to a fully socialist system. Oh, wait...

jimed14

MattyJoe wrote:

Okay, but I don't see the part where you're gonna fix it. Obama certainly won't. Think the economy is bad now? Whoa boy, the times are changing indeed. I can't wait till Obama levies even higher taxes on corporations. I don't see how that could possibly fix the economy, without converting over to a fully socialist system. Oh, wait...

We're not talking about going from zero to 40% tax rates, we're talking about a few point increase, back to the Clinton years rates ... you know, when the economy was soaring and we actually had a budget surplus?

The thing is ... for McCain to continue trumpeting the Bush tax cuts, to want to INCREASE tax cuts to the wealtiest people, in the midst of two wars and a record 10 trillion dollar deficit, well, that's irresponsible to me.

We've had 8 years of the trickle down theory, and we've done nothing but dig a huge hole ...

It's NOT brain washing, it's the truth, this trickle down, give the rich and corporation tax cuts theory has FAILED and John McCain wants to dig the hole deeper ... that's just being blind.

edit - take a gander, if 07 and 08 were on this chart, it would be even worse ... http://www.calaborlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/deficits-by-president.jpg

mammasan

MattyJoe wrote:

Okay, but I don't see the part where you're gonna fix it. Obama certainly won't. Think the economy is bad now? Whoa boy, the times are changing indeed. I can't wait till Obama levies even higher taxes on corporations. I don't see how that could possibly fix the economy, without converting over to a fully socialist system. Oh, wait...

I don't agree with Obama's fiscal policy because I believe that we should be reducing spending, extremely reducing spending. With that said Obama's tax policy makes more fiscal sense than McCain's. Neither candidate is going to cut over all spending. They may slash some here and there but they will increase spending in other areas. So it can be said that spending will remain the same or increase under either candidate. With Obama's policy the government will be collecting more revenue to close the deficit gap. Under McCain's policy the government would only be widening the budget deficit and creating more debt. It is irresponsible fiscal policy to collect less than what you spend, I mean isn't that ideology what started this whole sub-prime financial meltdown.

MattyJoe

mammasan wrote:

It is irresponsible fiscal policy to collect less than what you spend, I mean isn't that ideology what started this whole sub-prime financial meltdown.

Then why not spend less than what we collect? Why is higher taxes always the automatic response for deficit spending? Cut the fucking spending already! Obama is talking about how bad the economy is and meanwhile he wants to raise taxes on corporations. That makes NO SENSE!! McCain at least has a little bit of a record to show that he would maybe cut spending (and so does Palin). Obama has no record in that area. Odds are against it happening, but I feel McCain is more likely to do it than Obama.

Bottom line, neither party is really concerned with cutting spending. Which is sad, and also why we need new parties.

mammasan

MattyJoe wrote:

Then why not spend less than what we collect? Why is higher taxes always the automatic response for deficit spending? Cut the fucking spending already! Obama is talking about how bad the economy is and meanwhile he wants to raise taxes on corporations. That makes NO SENSE!! McCain at least has a little bit of a record to show that he would maybe do cut spending (and so does Palin). Obama has no record in that area. Not saying McCain would, but the record is at least there.

Neither would cut spending across the board and yes I agree that reducing spending is my preferred choice, as I stated in the beginning of my post, but unfortunately that is not an option available to us from these candidates. So we can either create more debt, causing more inflation or we can try to balance the budget. To me balancing the budget is far better fiscal policy.

digster

mammasan wrote:

Neither would cut spending across the board and yes I agree that reducing spending is my preferred choice, as I stated in the beginning of my post, but unfortunately that is not an option available to us from these candidates. So we can either create more debt, causing more inflation or we can try to balance the budget. To me balancing the budget is far better fiscal policy.

McCain did say in the first debate that he would commit to a spending freeze, besides veterans' affairs; I don't think that's going to happen, and I don't think that's anywhere close to the right approach, but he did throw that out in the first debate.

mammasan

digster wrote:

McCain did say in the first debate that he would commit to a spending freeze, besides veterans' affairs; I don't think that's going to happen, and I don't think that's anywhere close to the right approach, but he did throw that out in the first debate.

That's not cutting spending, that's freezing it at it's current levels. Also with the financial crisis we are in now, with so many people loosing jobs don't you think that will also equate to more government assistance or should we just let those people fall through the cracks. Point of the matter is that McCain, nor Obama, are going to slash spending drastically or at all. So, unfortunately, if that is the case then we need to consider what would be better, less taxes = larger debt, possible inflation and weakening of the dollar or higher taxes for the top 5% = an attempt of closing the budget gap. Again I don't support either policy. My choice would be to cut spending so we could reduce taxes without creating a budget deficit.

digster

There's alot that's not true about that in my opinion, but on first notice you didn't even mention John McCain.

Never mind. You do mention him once. A sterling endorsement.

EDIT: Oh man, this is absolutely ridiculous. You're right; I don't know how to respond to most of this. Michelle Obama is a "bitter, angry, anti-American racist?" Is this Sean Hannity? I want to debate and discuss with people who disagree with me, but how can I do that when you avoid issues and just engage in angry, mindless rhetoric? What's the point. We're talking about voting for the next Presidental contender; who the hell cares about Nancy Pelosi and who Sweden gives the Nobel Prize to? For your talk of Michelle being bitter, this is exactly what your posts above sound like. A bitter partisan who brings no facts to the table, just some strange ax to grind with liberals. So much for a reasonable discussion.

So in short, yes you're right, there's not much to talk about.

jimed14

digster wrote:

There's alot that's not true about that in my opinion, but on first notice you didn't even mention John McCain.

Never mind. You do mention him once. A sterling endorsement.

EDIT: Oh man, this is absolutely ridiculous. You're right; I don't know how to respond to most of this. Michelle Obama is a "bitter, angry, anti-American racist?" Is this Sean Hannity? I want to debate and discuss with people who disagree with me, but how can I do that when you avoid issues and just engage in angry, mindless rhetoric? What's the point. We're talking about voting for the next Presidental contender; who the hell cares about Nancy Pelosi and who Sweden gives the Nobel Prize to? For your talk of Michelle being bitter, this is exactly what your posts above sound like. A bitter partisan who brings no facts to the table, just some strange ax to grind with liberals. So much for a reasonable discussion.

So in short, yes you're right, there's not much to talk about.

get ready for it ... I think it's only going to get worse from here on out ... I'm sure they will be calling him Barack Hussein Obama every chance they get ...

mammasan

Pepper I've already expressed to you that I am a Ron Paul supporter and will undoubtably end up writing in his name come November, unless Bob Barr can some how impress me before the. As to what you said, most of it is talking points, half truths and misleading points about a political party and your reference to the cross dressing voting block is a bit insulting, not because I'm a cross dresser but because their votes count just as much as everyone else's. I agree that the Democratic party is a joke, a dismal display, but the Republican party is no better. The Republican party has lost it's way and, in my opinion, is in worse shape than the Democrats. I can at least say that the Democrats, as shitty as some of their policies are, at least have stuck to their principles for the most part. The Republicans have not. What was once the party of limited government, controlled spending and non-interventionism has now become this bloated carcass that panders to an overly righteous religious sect. The mere fact that Republicans would rush back to Washington to vote on a personal family issue like the Terri Shiavo case is enough to make me want to vomit. The fact that the Republican party, not all of them, wanted to amend our Constitution to define marriage is unthinkable. How any one who considers themselves a conservative, a true conservative not this moral majority crap, and still support this party is completely indecent.

Probably on of the best governors that my home state has had in my lifetime, Christine Todd Whitman, wrote a great book about the hijacking of the Republican party. I would recommend this book to anyone who fancies themselves a Republican or Conservative. It discuss exactly what I have just stated about the Republican party loosing it's way.

So yes the Dems are horrible but to state that the Republicans are so much better is a joke and much of what you stated simply isn't true my friend. While Obama is a very far cry from being an even half way decent Presidential candidate he is far from the worst in our lifetime.

I would also like to add that hyper-partisanship, of which I have to say you have shown here, is the true problem in this country. People are so fiercely pitted against one an other because of political party that it impedes our ability to get anything accomplished. As long as we stay divided we will never fix what is broken in Washington. As I have stated before no matter who wins this election, we the people, always loose and until we can put aside our political difference we will never even come close to winning.

Edit: Let me also add since the several times I have mentioned it no one has addressed it, the Republican support for MEK and men like Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carilles. These two men walk freely in this country because of the Republican party. These two men where responsible for the bombing of the Cubana Air flight in 1976 that killed over 70 people. These men where involved in the assassination of Orlando Letelier in Dupont Circle in Washington DC. Posada Carilles was responsible for a string of hotel bombings in Cuba that injured scores of people and killed one Italian tourist. These men where responsible for countless assassination attempts and bombings through out Latin American. Carilles snuck into this country illegally, was caught and detained and later released to be a free man. All this even though Venezuala was asking that he be extradited to Venezuela to face charges for crimes committed there, we have had an extradition treaty with Venezuela since 1922. If this not harboring terrorism and the worse part is that the Poasada carilles case occured after 9/11.

musicismylife78

ayers is a hero. i support the weathermen. I support Ayers.

Whats funny is, 3 pages into this asinine coversation, no one responded to my extremely pertinant point. How could you link Ayers, a man who is a radical activist and revolutionary in the true sense, to a man who is a career politician a man who believes in change through the system and through his being elected president? How is this fair? Obama's continuing to say "I was 8 years old" is a legimate point, Ayers isnt being judged by what he did this year. he is being judged by what he did in 1969 and 1970.

People should educate themselves before posting. Instead of being angry at Ayers, why arent you all pissed at those crooked cops? They believed ayers and the weathermen were terrorists and criminals. So they tracked them. Wiretapped them. Hunted them. Spied. Infiltrated the groups, FBI members even going as far as growing hair out, and actually becoming hippies in order to gain get information. When COINTELPRO became public, oddly enough this was right around the time when Ayers and his wife turned themselves in. Thats right, he turned himself in. But the judge ruled that the cops and investigators had investigated the whole thing in a criminal and illegal manner.

How people can suggest Obama, as a politician, who believes in capitalism and free markets, and consumerist culture, is somehow ideologically similar to Ayers is beyond me. Obama is everything ayers and his pals were raving AGAINST years ago

digster

jimed14 wrote:

get ready for it ... I think it's only going to get worse from here on out ... I'm sure they will be calling him Barack Hussein Obama every chance they get ...

I don't mind that people have passionate feelings against against Obama; I understand entirely that many people may feel he's the direct wrong direction for this country. That's fine; let's talk about that. Let's talk economy. Let's talk Iraq. But just because someone's passionate like PEPPER is doesn't allow him/her or anybody else to ignore facts. The fact is that there is nothing reputable that could give Pepper the impression that Michelle Obama is a racist.

There's alot I disagree with in Pepper's most; for example, the Department of Energy, not liberal crazies, are the ones who have said the prices of gas will not be felt for thirty years. And we cannot drill our way into energy independence when we have an extremely limited supply. But let's have that argument, let's lay out those points. Issues like that aren't the point of Pepper's posts; "Michelle is a racist," "Barack Hussein Obama," the bizarre rant about Jimmy Carter and the Nobel Prize, Nancy Pelosi, I mean, who gives a shit? I ask why a McCain supporter is voting for him and I get that? False and half-truth accusations and character assassinations? I don't like it when any party or person does it, but I'm pretty sick, as I'm sure most are, at the pitiful excuse for political dialogue in this country. And most of my problems are illustrated nicely in Pepper's posts. I don't mean to call him or her out; both parties do it and many posters do it. But go back to the Michelle accusation; there's nothing to support that. At all. Why, then, would somebody believe it? Pepper, why do you believe that? It's baseless.

What's sadly ironic is that all that vile rhetoric, the Muslim stuff, Michelle is a racist, Rezko, etc...it's the same kind of political practices that brought down John McCain's incredible campaign in 2000. He's fallen so far it's hard to remember what a breath of fresh air he was then. Now it's 2008, and his supporters engage in it just the same.